I appreciate your posts - I appreciate your posts because you are explaining things from your perspective and I see that you put effort into maintaining a rational level of thought - that is easy for me to respect - we may not agree on everything but I do respect what you have to say.

surreptitious75 wrote:

encode decode wrote:We should be careful when employing any reductionist attempts to anything - reduction is not there to take away anything except the cloudiness in our judgement - reduction is there to make things easier to deal with. Reduction makes our personal confinement more bearable because we seek to understand everything and by ourselves we cannot - one human is not alone - he or she is in the company of the whole universe - an infinite expanse

Although I agree with this reductionism is not a universally accepted methodology with regard to understanding our place in the universeSince many prefer alternative means of understanding and therefore do not see exclusively scientific explanations as entirely satisfactory

Well, I cannot argue with you here. I will say that as long as any methodology is kept in it's place then all is well - that includes any methodology that I use, even the mixed up ones. My intent here is not to confuse anyone but I am not entirely sure how I can avoid that. The best thing that I can see is everyone is still using their own brain around here and that is something I always like to see and as I said to WendyDarling:

Never forget to stay anchored to your position for as long as is necessary - I hope this helps.

This as a matter of course is something I personally do not do when I am engaged in deep analysis - that much should be evident from a great number of my posts and most people just let me go with it - still I have not forgotten what is conventional and I do return to what convention I see fit at the end of the day. There are a few things in life that I still have a hard time accepting i.e. the justified use of particle accelerators, the real value of the genome project and taking the right or wrong path when it comes to strong artificial intelligence.

Given that these were only ever meant to be random thoughts - I do hope they are beneficial thoughts.

encode decode wrote:I will say that as long as any methodology is kept in its place then all is well - that includes any methodology that I use even the mixed up ones. My intent here is not to confuse anyone but I am not entirely sure how I can avoid that. The best thing that I can see is everyone is still using their own brain around here and that is something I always like to see and as I said to Wendy

Never forget to stay anchored to your position for as long as is necessary - I hope this helps

I think this is wrong because it can lead to dogmatism and defending ones position at all costs. A position should only be held for as long as it can be reasonably defended. Once that is no longer the case then it must either be modified or abandoned completely. Furthermore dogmatism might lead to some other position being defended at all costs and so it is best to avoid it altogether. The right mental attitude is therefore as important as the positions themselves if not more so

encode decode wrote:I will say that as long as any methodology is kept in its place then all is well - that includes any methodology that I use even the mixed up ones. My intent here is not to confuse anyone but I am not entirely sure how I can avoid that. The best thing that I can see is everyone is still using their own brain around here and that is something I always like to see and as I said to Wendy

Never forget to stay anchored to your position for as long as is necessary - I hope this helps

I think this is wrong because it can lead to dogmatism and defending ones position at all costs. A position should only be held for as long as it can be reasonably defended. Once that is no longer the case then it must either be modified or abandoned completely. Furthermore dogmatism might lead to some other position being defended at all costs and so it is best to avoid it altogether. The right mental attitude is therefore as important as the positions themselves if not more so

encode decode wrote:I see there are benefits to both subjectivity and objectivity independently and together

There are benefits to both objectivity and subjectivity but I myself favour the former because it is more rigorous so less susceptible to human biasFor I am more interested in seeing physical reality as it is or as close to that as possible than simply having an interpretation that is pleasing to me

encode decode wrote:I see science has become hamstrung in its attempt to provide all the answers and I wonder what may have caused that. I keep bringing science into this because that is what I sense intuitively that is making every attempt to taint philosophy

Science is a methodology that explains the property and behaviour of observable phenomena. This is its one function. It is therefore not supposed to provide all the answers. It is nowadays regarded as a separate discipline from philosophy even though it is actually a branch of philosophy. But it cannot taint it because science is not interested in anything philosophy has to say. Scientists may not have a very high opinion of philosophy but that is an entirely separate issue. They are human so will have their own biases the same as everyone else. Science itself however is immune from any such bias

encode decode wrote:Whether you see what I am talking about or not is not the end of the world so to speak - I say everything is up for interpretation - I say everything is up for expression. I also think it is very important to maintain convention - convention allows us to understand each other sensibly and some things in this thread have diverted from convention - I do know however that I am not the only one diverting from convention - of the top of my head I count four

At the moment I am not really sure else how to explain what is in my mind

As long as there is productive discourse that is all that matters for it is the only way progress can be madeFor this reason I prefer conversation mode to argument mode which can lead to little or no progress at all

You will get things from my angle when conversing with me and will notice an honest interest from me in what you have to say. I am going to proceed in an insouciant manner with this post and come back to a more careful answer soon.

Anomaly654 wrote:Seems surprisingly easy to incorporate the way I view things into what you’ve written En-De, unless I’ve missed completely what you mean by “points”.

It seems that you understand what I mean by points - I will analyse what you have written a couple of times to be sure. A little while ago now, I started thinking deeply about how James' philosophy affects my own work. I was immediately surprised by your first comment in this thread and once I read one or two more of your posts, I had to know more about your work. I will read back over what I have written and digest more of what you have written.

Anomaly654 wrote:My trek into thinking about existence and reality started some years back under an assumption that there must be some connection between thing and attribute because they are both present to thought. The notion of information came to me; both hard and soft (or concreta and abstracta) things seemed to share the ability to inform perception. A working methodology remained to be worked out.

I have personally been at the existence and reality thing for twenty years now - most of which, I put work into the early years, but since meeting James I have wound back up and am happily absorbing much of what he has to say and now with your addition I feel like I am back in my element. Full on philosophy is something I am new to but I have been working on my own philosophy for more than twenty years. That covers a minuscule portion of my background and on to what you are saying in the first sentence about the being of some connection between thing and attribute.

There is indeed a connection between thing and attribute and your reasoning coming back to thing and attribute both being present to thought makes sense. The information notion is very interesting to me given that I work on philosophy of mind and information is obviously pertinent there. Concreta and abstracta is present in the work I have been doing with James this year and forever present in my ongoing work involving mind. I also make a distinction in my own work that mind and brain are in fact very different things and not by a more conventional route.

Mind obviously has an interface to brain but brain does not understand the language of mind and mind does not understand the language of brain. There is a special layer between the two that abstracts away the burden to mind of brain and vice versa. This layer exists between the mind and brain - it is the interface - hardware programmed with firmware so to speak - from here the mind is able to do its own thing and brain is able to do its own thing. While you are thinking (which is an active process of engagement between mind and brain) the brain is able to maintain a subconscious - this subconscious is temporal memory based.

What is being produced is a constant stream of data that is optimized each time you sleep << that is the way I see it at least.

Neurons as it turns out work along the same principle as the PtA's that I mentioned before in that they are constantly "firing" under different "loads". Each neuron being treated as a "thing" can have multiple attributes kind of like how a singular aircraft has when flying as opposed to resting on the ground(neurons do have resting states too). Each one of these attributes can be treated under the PtA umbrella. It is not a giant leap to see how your iota's fit into the way I describe things. In fact I use the letter "i" in my own work to mean inception translated as PtA in James' work - an i is a point - a point of inception - a point where something starts and yet continues at the same time - the start is the new state and the continue is that this point is forever a part of what is around it, just that at no two consecutive instances will a point remain the same - we are talking at an infinitesimal scale here.

It has been interesting for me on more than one occasion - I remember reading how microtubules are affected on quantum scales and thought how this could actually be explained with the work that James has more or less completed. To expand I will quote microtubules from a site:

On November 29, 2015 wrote:In neurons, microtubules respond instantly to mental events and constantly build and take down elaborate structures for the rapidly changing axons and dendrites of the synapses. Some think that microtubules are quantum computers and the seat of consciousness. Their lifestyle is quite remarkable.SOURCE

The thing to note is the connection between a mental event and a matter event. A combined information event. I am yet to explore this further for some sort of verification but importantly it keeps my imagination busy on the topic of i.

Backing up to your first post and part of it's content:

Anomaly654 wrote:The way I see the world, meaning is a natural "byproduct" of information and information is being or "isness". This hardly an extensive or all-encompassing definition, but maybe it's a starting point.

It is apparent from microtubule data that this is true - speaking of starting points . . .. . . inception points . . . there is a continuation taking place at each one of those points . . .

Now to leave my more insouciant discourse behind, I feel the need to read back over what you have posted to get my bearings again.

encode decode wrote:Whether you see what I am talking about or not is not the end of the world so to speak - I say everything is up for interpretation - I say everything is up for expression. I also think it is very important to maintain convention - convention allows us to understand each other sensibly and some things in this thread have diverted from convention - I do know however that I am not the only one diverting from convention - of the top of my head I count four

At the moment I am not really sure else how to explain what is in my mind

As long as there is productive discourse that is all that matters for it is the only way progress can be madeFor this reason I prefer conversation mode to argument mode which can lead to little or no progress at all

I have personally been at the existence and reality thing for twenty years now - most of which, I put work into the early years, but since meeting James I have wound back up and am happily absorbing much of what he has to say and now with your addition I feel like I am back in my element. Full on philosophy is something I am new to but I have been working on my own philosophy for more than twenty years.

And what I posted is the culmination of almost 25 years of trying to find a metaphysical solution to a theological problem. The reductionist method of information is the solution for that problem, but I've come to be fascinated with philosophy and metaphysics along the way. I'm a rank amateur and understand if you find it prudent to distance yourself from my abstract rambling to pursue more practical avenues. I enjoy our discussion and will continue to mine treasure here. Glad I found this place.

I am hoping I have not given off the incorrect signal - I actually enjoy our interaction very much.

Anomaly654 wrote:And what I posted is the culmination of almost 25 years of trying to find a metaphysical solution to a theological problem. The reductionist method of information is the solution for that problem, but I've come to be fascinated with philosophy and metaphysics along the way. I'm a rank amateur and understand if you find it prudent to distance yourself from my abstract rambling to pursue more practical avenues. I enjoy our discussion and will continue to mine treasure here. Glad I found this place.

I had a feeling you have been at this for a while and I am glad for our interaction - it is always great to come across another person with such commitment - I have nothing against the reductionist method, and I think it is the perfect method for what we are talking about - I just like to exercise caution with any method that I am not missing something along the way, hence my previous comments. I will not be distancing myself from your abstract rambling and I hope that you do not distance yourself from mine. These threads are a part of my practical avenues. I too have found great enjoyment in our discussion and will happily continue to - I too am glad you found this place.

Be aware that there might be some cultural differences in the way we use more general language, I have already experienced this issue at ILP.

I am hoping I have not given off the incorrect signal - I actually enjoy our interaction very much.

Not at all, lol, just a knee-jerk reaction from posting my stuff on other sites, probably. Material in last post is usually where everyone begins to politely ignore and I become the elephant in the room.

I have nothing against the reductionist method, and I think it is the perfect method for what we are talking about - I just like to exercise caution with any method that I am not missing something along the way, hence my previous comments.

Shouldn't be a worry here my friend, I don't think deeply enough to take the reduction into truly philosophical realms. One thing I've learned pretty abruptly is that in things philosophical my pen quickly outdistances my intellectual abilities, but I do appreciate being told by intelligent folk where it goes wrong so I can reassess.

I can nearly guarantee you that I am going to rub someone the wrong way at least once a week around here but there is always the smile.

Anomaly654 wrote:Not at all, lol, just a knee-jerk reaction from posting my stuff on other sites, probably. Material in last post is usually where everyone begins to politely ignore and I become the elephant in the room.

The material in your last post is what inspires me...probably the most. You might find that those other people are remarkably stupid even if they don't seem it.

Anomaly654 wrote:Shouldn't be a worry here my friend, I don't think deeply enough to take the reduction into truly philosophical realms. One thing I've learned pretty abruptly is that in things philosophical my pen quickly outdistances my intellectual abilities, but I do appreciate being told by intelligent folk where it goes wrong so I can reassess.

Well it seems to me that you have put quite a bit of deep thought into what you have been doing - deep thought need not be intense thought in a short period - one can descend into the depths over a longer period of time.

When I said that I would read your post a couple more times it is because I find it important enough to.

Each persons mind is a little different and each person deals with their work and ways differently to the way they conduct their lives too. I do not use an automotive manual to guide my life and therefore I am able to return to my life after using such a manual to perform maintenance on an automobile.

I said to you:

I will say that as long as any methodology is kept in its place then all is well - that includes any methodology that I use even the mixed up ones. My intent here is not to confuse anyone but I am not entirely sure how I can avoid that. The best thing that I can see is everyone is still using their own brain around here and that is something I always like to see and as I said to WendyDarling:

Never forget to stay anchored to your position for as long as is necessary - I hope this helps

To which you responded:

surreptitious75 wrote:I think this is wrong because it can lead to dogmatism and defending ones position at all costs. A position should only be held for as long as it can be reasonably defended. Once that is no longer the case then it must either be modified or abandoned completely. Furthermore dogmatism might lead to some other position being defended at all costs and so it is best to avoid it altogether. The right mental attitude is therefore as important as the positions themselves if not more so

I agree as I said before - my words would have been different but meant the same. I think it is reasonable to say that "as long as it can be reasonably defended" is the same as "as long as is necessary" in a particular context. The context I would give is that of if you do not quite understand the opposing argument that is correct then perhaps it would be necessary to stand by your own position until you do. Of course this is dependent on the person being able to shift positions when the correct position becomes apparent - best summed up by what you said at the end there; The right mental attitude is therefore as important as the positions themselves if not more so.

In accordance with reality are states >> truth states << these are PtA's as far as I can determine. There are those that are permanent - permanence is not what you would think though - permanence is not so intuitive because it is ever changing and yet the truth does not change << that is the mind bender.

Since of the four aspects of reality mentioned earlier—force/energy, value, matter, information—the matter-energy connection is well known and uncontroversial, you have me wondering how/where information and value fit into the picture in terms of abstractive layering. Matter and energy are observable and the most empirical phenomenon, though to think about existence as energy is obviously abstract and material existence is the norm. This seems to place matter in the lowest category of abstractive layering. Force-energy’s acceptance by the status quo as a legitimate rendering of existence seems to place it in the 2nd layer.

Information and value remain. Though both are abstractions, it seems easier to infer instances of value (at least of descriptive value) in phenomenal reality than it does information. In this regard information seems more aligned with meaning in that both appear to share a certain “isness” feature of reality. Both also have something in common with pornography and truth—we know what they are when we see them but they’re difficult to define.

I tend to focus on information and work outward to the others, not that information does, or should, occupy a certain place, just that information and value are most interesting to me. The concept you present of truth states as having both permanence and non-permanence is an integral part of my worldview.

Value imo breaks down to [or exhibits itself as] two kinds, descriptive-prescriptive. It's further divided in information in one of two denominations or grades, true and false. Degrees or quantities of value are, in descriptive matters, just mathematical configurations because value [truth] inherent in descriptive reality is absolute. The notion of falsity has no meaning in a purely descriptive world—“no ought from is” seems to persist throughout the material. But from the perspective of perception, falsity exists in two primary considerations (I think this finds association with your permanence in the midst of the absolute):a. First, a sub-category of prescriptive value—truth-value associated with intellectual operation-which is actually falsifiable; [in naturalistic terms, intellectual consciousness; in theology the soul].b. Second, attributed or derivative falsification in the mutability of inorganic entities as an aspect of the perceived instrumental value within a given mutation.

For example, a house designed to provide comfort, shelter and a variety of conveniences can be said to be “wholly true” when it meets these needs fully. Over time as the material elements of the house change—settling of the foundation, breakdown of mechanical and electrical systems, deterioration of roofing and external covering materials, etc.—from the perspective of the instrumental value of the house, it’s “falsified” to an uninhabitable state. Thus, attributed falsification is a quality that stands in reference to an ultimate truth-state in human judgment, and that ultimate truth state references an absolute truth-state—the absolute truth state of the constituent micro components of the house and of all matter. The unchanging descriptive truth-values of the micro or atomic/subatomic level constituents of the house remain unaffected; mutation on this level is merely a redistributive process and has no correlation to falsity, i.e., there is no “good” available to the truth of inorganics, although aesthetic goodness can be conceptualized from various material arrangements. Matter’s value is purely technical and practical. I find interesting the relationship between value and external design in the analogy of the house. This association seems to recur (can be interpreted to occur) throughout the varied configurations of material existence.

Another example is the life of a piece of fruit. The assorted truth-values inherent in the components of each atom are always unalterably true, even while the macro entities they occupy undergo modification. The atoms that constitute an unpicked apple all retain the microscopic exactness of their respective t-values while the apple they occupy undergoes change from sprout to maturity to ripening and senescence and decomposition. In the decay process there may be exchanges of components on the subatomic level in the associated chemical processes, but this is redistribution, not change in value states of those components.

In both cases instrumental value--the described goods made available in house design and perceived goods [taste, nutrition, etc.] in the apple which become falsified (decay, while natural, no longer provides goods to an agent)--is in perception.

Is this anything like what you mean about permanence not being what we think it is or am I off?

What we are talking about is quite fresh to me - I really appreciate having conversation like this to challenge my brain into novel bubbles of thought and yet we are discussing something with wide range - this is good. With such wide ranging implications and hints at even more, I need you to forgive me if I do seem to veer on the topics at hand - you are free and may bring me back in line with our conversation as needed - I am happy for that to happen.

Truth states conform with reality, that much we can say - I will get my bearings here in a moment. Each truth state is a consequence of the previous truth state and affects the next truth state to be. Permanent truth states can be regarded as laws and exist in the divine realm and at times are the same as physically true states - I hope I am making sense here. What does seem to be permanent is change - how can that be?

We like to think of permanence as that which is the state or quality of lasting or remaining unchanged indefinitely. So I am saying that change is what remains unchanged indefinitely - a semantic problem at least - however if you can somehow follow what I am saying here you will see that change is indefinite.

Perhaps it is better to say that a law does not change but truth does - but what would that entail? Surely an infinity of laws to cover all of the truth states, so as you can see truth is a very real problem but then so is law - how we choose to deal with this is what I believe is important and in an ever increasingly complex(seemingly) life, it would seem that we are destined to use heuristic tools until we - maybe ever - find more precise tools to play catch up with reality.

Anomaly654 wrote:Since of the four aspects of reality mentioned earlier—force/energy, value, matter, information—the matter-energy connection is well known and uncontroversial, you have me wondering how/where information and value fit into the picture in terms of abstractive layering. Matter and energy are observable and the most empirical phenomenon, though to think about existence as energy is obviously abstract and material existence is the norm. This seems to place matter in the lowest category of abstractive layering. Force-energy’s acceptance by the status quo as a legitimate rendering of existence seems to place it in the 2nd layer.

I would have to say that information and value float around on top of the matter-energy connection somehow and that is me putting it rather poorly. I do believe that information is empirical at times and thus is an indication of the existence of empirical degrees. I also think the concept of energy has more value in the grand scheme of things than that which we currently give it. Somewhere down there at the nanoscopic level and beyond must be a connection between energy and information.

Perhaps I am already lending some insight to the problem . . .

Anomaly654 wrote:Information and value remain. Though both are abstractions, it seems easier to infer instances of value (at least of descriptive value) in phenomenal reality than it does information. In this regard information seems more aligned with meaning in that both appear to share a certain “isness” feature of reality. Both also have something in common with pornography and truth—we know what they are when we see them but they’re difficult to define.

With any luck I am still speaking the language of the discussion. I think you are on to something here with "instances" and my suggestion is that they are still impossible to measure perfectly but descriptive value need not be perfect anyway. I have to agree that information is aligned with meaning but I will say I sense some issue with value not being a part of meaning - not that you were saying that necessarily and so it seems as you have put it knowing does become hard to define.

Anomaly654 wrote:I tend to focus on information and work outward to the others, not that information does, or should, occupy a certain place, just that information and value are most interesting to me. The concept you present of truth states as having both permanence and non-permanence is an integral part of my worldview.

I would recommend that you maintain your focus as there are plenty who focus from differing frames of reference. I am certain that information does actually occupy a certain place and that information does have spatial displacement somehow but this might not be imperative to your focus - I am glad to hear that truth states have both permanence and non-permanence as an integration of your worldview - the way you maintain your conception of the world is I believe valuable.

It is going to take me a while longer to digest what else you have written - it is very stimulating. I find synergy with what you said, "mutation on this level is merely a redistributive process and has no correlation to falsity", you have shown me some deeper insight into the idea of abstractive layering through this statement.

I love the house analogy . . .

Anomaly654 wrote:Another example is the life of a piece of fruit. The assorted truth-values inherent in the components of each atom are always unalterably true, even while the macro entities they occupy undergo modification. The atoms that constitute an unpicked apple all retain the microscopic exactness of their respective t-values while the apple they occupy undergoes change from sprout to maturity to ripening and senescence and decomposition. In the decay process there may be exchanges of components on the subatomic level in the associated chemical processes, but this is redistribution, not change in value states of those components.

I agree entirely with what you have said here providing it is being maintained as a view point because I still think we can go below the atomic state to a particle state and below the particle state to the PtA states - a story for another day. By the way, I really like your analogies.

Anomaly654 wrote:In both cases instrumental value--the described goods made available in house design and perceived goods [taste, nutrition, etc.] in the apple which become falsified (decay, while natural, no longer provides goods to an agent)--is in perception.

Is this anything like what you mean about permanence not being what we think it is or am I off?

Nailed it!

I am getting great value out of our conversation Anomaly654. I also think that when conversing at such a level - mutation on this level is merely a redistributive process and has no correlation to falsity - is something to keep in mind - it may sound a little warped - hopefully you detect my meaning.

I... think we can go below the atomic state to a particle state and below the particle state to the PtA states

Been thinking about PtA and its place in information En-De. Just briefly, trying to piece together some things, it seems to me PtA is has potential (pun intended) to explain one reason I use the “iota” as a reduction of information. Since you provided the concept I want to be sure I’m not abusing your sense of the term. In my thinking iotas form abstract point-locales. Point locales can either be spatially or abstractly located. “Location” appears to me to be in raw form a specificity, so location of an abstract object is limited to a specific meaning that stands outside spacetime, while spatial point-locales have both specificity and temporal behaviors in space. For a meaning to sustain in conceptualization seems to me to require the ‘that-what’ structure, and point-locales provide thatness.

How a thing can have a PtA lets me shift the view from information to force-energy fairly smoothly. I like this concept. It seems the PtA estimation of abstract things lies in their capacity to inform perception, and this capacity seems to require some sort of dynamic or force. I use the expression “force-energy” because force seems more generic and applicable to non-spatial reality while energy is more grounded as a function in time and space. Both can be used interchangeably, of course. My point is, each iota of information might contain as its value, one PtA for each component—thus, each iota would possess exactly 2 PtA, one for each component value (V) and particularity (P). Building from the reduction outward, I’ll assume arbitrarily that the simplest piece of matter—the quark I think—contains 10 PtA of P and 10 of V at its spatial point-locale. Potential in “potential to affect” is from this viewpoint a quantity of force or energy.

Is this understanding of PtAs as the force—either/both potential or/and actual—possible in your understanding and use of the term? Your suggesting that a PtA state is “below” or less than a particle state appears to place PtA in some other domain than I’m picturing. Also, is PtA a term your invention, a term you’ve used in copyrighted material or can I use it too? And thanks for your responses btw. I usually operate in a vacuum which can create stagnation…your contributions are welcome and stimulating, great stuff.

Just to clarify a bit better than I have, PtA is not a thing or entity, but rather a measure of a situation at a point. PtA, Potential-to-Affect, refers to a physical situation, an arrangement of substance, not the substance itself.

Anomaly654 wrote:

I... think we can go below the atomic state to a particle state and below the particle state to the PtA states

Been thinking about PtA and its place in information En-De. Just briefly, trying to piece together some things, it seems to me PtA is has potential (pun intended) to explain one reason I use the “iota” as a reduction of information. Since you provided the concept I want to be sure I’m not abusing your sense of the term.

I hope you don't mind me taking you a layer deeper into this conceptual realm of PtA and I also want to introduce a new term: affectance. As PtA changes, it describes the physical substance called "affectance". And PtA is always undergoing changes, being affected as it affects. Affectance is the changing of the PtA situation. Affectance is the changing whereas PtA is the arrangement of the changing that is itself being changed.

One way to think about this is . . .. . . PtA being analogous to an electric field and . . . . . . affectance being analogous to an electromagnetic wave . . .. . . an electric field is merely a situation, not a substance . . .. . . an electromagnetic wave is an electric field that is changing.

Anomaly654 wrote:In my thinking iotas form abstract point-locales. Point locales can either be spatially or abstractly located. “Location” appears to me to be in raw form a specificity, so location of an abstract object is limited to a specific meaning that stands outside spacetime, while spatial point-locales have both specificity and temporal behaviors in space. For a meaning to sustain in conceptualization seems to me to require the ‘that-what’ structure, and point-locales provide thatness.

This sounds very reasonable to me. I really like your concept of iotas. The way you have explained it is quite understandable when I concentrate my focus on what you have written. As a side note, James and I also have a time unit related to universal maximum speed/s.

Anomaly654 wrote:How a thing can have a PtA lets me shift the view from information to force-energy fairly smoothly. I like this concept. It seems the PtA estimation of abstract things lies in their capacity to inform perception, and this capacity seems to require some sort of dynamic or force. I use the expression “force-energy” because force seems more generic and applicable to non-spatial reality while energy is more grounded as a function in time and space. Both can be used interchangeably, of course. My point is, each iota of information might contain as its value, one PtA for each component—thus, each iota would possess exactly 2 PtA, one for each component value (V) and particularity (P). Building from the reduction outward, I’ll assume arbitrarily that the simplest piece of matter—the quark I think—contains 10 PtA of P and 10 of V at its spatial point-locale. Potential in “potential to affect” is from this viewpoint a quantity of force or energy.

This tells me that we are nearly on the same wavelength - I must say that I am fairly excited when I read things like this. Your suggested mathematics here is indicative of the concept I am trying to convey which tells me that we are edging our way to an understanding of what each other is saying.

Anomaly654 wrote:Is this understanding of PtAs as the force—either/both potential or/and actual—possible in your understanding and use of the term? Your suggesting that a PtA state is “below” or less than a particle state appears to place PtA in some other domain than I’m picturing. Also, is PtA a term your invention, a term you’ve used in copyrighted material or can I use it too? And thanks for your responses btw. I usually operate in a vacuum which can create stagnation…your contributions are welcome and stimulating, great stuff.

It seems you have it right - PtA is representative so it is kind of abstract itself. PtA states are infinitesimal and we have a way around that for measurement purposes. PtA is not a term that I invented - James I believe invented it. I would imagine as long as the term is being used correctly that James would not have a problem with it being used but I can not speak for him. You are welcome for the responses but I have to say that I am really enjoying this conversation myself.

I have been known to add ambiguity to a situation - my apologies if I have done that on this occasion - from where I am sitting however we are understanding each other. One thing I have noticed is that "things" seem to repeat themselves on scales from one scale to another so I imagine that the general idea/concept of PtA/Affectance can also work from 'below the microscopic' to 'above the macroscopic' scales and not just an infinitesimal scale.

An "iota" is a particle of information. PtA has no particulate form, but Affectance, made from the changing and propagating PtA, does have a particle form:

And particles are formed from non-particulate substance due to the following principle which applies to all forms of existence; physical, social, psychological, economic (as is being discussed in another thread), and information...

And an iota particle, a mental construct, is formed of PHT, Perception of Hope and Threat or "inferred relevance". PHT is the mental form of PtA and the Potential for Action for conscious beings.

And also, it is accurate Principles and Facts that are eternal ("Conceptual Realm"), never changing. Anything physical is always undergoing alterations ("Physical Realm"). Or "Divine and Mortal Realms", if you prefer Plato's version.

And encode seems to be doing great so far.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

I have been known to add ambiguity to a situation - my apologies if I have done that on this occasion

Armed with my 9th grade education I got a night security job at a hydroelectric plant some 18 years ago to cover slow time while self-employed, sitting in a 8'x10' temporary guard shack from 6pm to 6am keeping eye on contractor parking lot, i.e., doing nothing for 12 hours a night. Was looking for answers to the theological problem I'd been working on for several years, so over those winter months dusted off the set of Aquinas' Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles given me years earlier, and read most of both. Loved the stuff, though the archaic language was tough to steer through. Things started clicking, and found I loved reading metaphysics and philosophy even though I only comprehend about 30% of what I read. Since then, I've found myself swimming in a sea of ambiguity. I know ambiguity, En-De, and you ain't it. I'm learning a lot from you, no worries...discussing abstract stuff is essentially a swim in Ambiguous Ocean, goes with the territory.

I need to take some time and think through your and Mr. Saint's last posts, this is new stuff for me. Thanks for your contributions. I'm willing to learn as long as youse are willing to teach.

An "iota" is a particle of information. PtA has no particulate form, but Affectance, made from the changing and propagating PtA, does have a particle form

The first thing that came to mind on reading this is that no, iotas of information are only particles as long as we’re discussing them; otherwise they probably exist as a waves (apologies for insertion of odd humor).

Back to sober discussion mode, it seems your presentation of PHT, PtA, Affectance and the way iotic information fits into these terms from your understanding seems to lead to an Idealist construct. This would explain my initial struggle to see the connections—I put things together from the “standard” realist perspective. If I understand correctly your explanation suggests a raw “stuff of existence” as a potential [non-particulate substance] available to intellectual operation to be made actual in either mental [iota of information; abstract entities] or so-called “material” [atomic/subatomic particles] form.

Is this heading in the right direction? And can you elaborate the idea of non-particulate substance? What is its form—pure energy? Where does value fit in?

NOTE: Your last post showed only large empty space between comments; wasn’t till I clicked “quote” button just now to respond (usually just copy/paste text) that I saw YouTube links. Comments above were without vantage point of seeing videos, so apologies if they talk past relevant points. Will watch vids soon to get a stronger feel for your position.

An "iota" is a particle of information. PtA has no particulate form, but Affectance, made from the changing and propagating PtA, does have a particle form

The first thing that came to mind on reading this is that no, iotas of information are only particles as long as we’re discussing them; otherwise they probably exist as a waves (apologies for insertion of odd humor).

Anomaly654 wrote:Back to sober discussion mode, it seems your presentation of PHT, PtA, Affectance and the way iotic information fits into these terms from your understanding seems to lead to an Idealist construct. This would explain my initial struggle to see the connections—I put things together from the “standard” realist perspective.

Every ontology is an idealized map of the real terrain. I specialize in ensuring that the maps are accurate. I am an Ontologist (one who forms ontologies, hopefully accurate understandings of reality). The word "inform" refers to casting or forming an idea relating to reality. All information (the ideas) are a part of the idealization of reality. Actual physical reality has no information, merely the potential for someone to form ideas within their mind from it, "reality informs" and "reality in-form".

Anomaly654 wrote: If I understand correctly your explanation suggests a raw “stuff of existence” as a potential [non-particulate substance] available to intellectual operation to be made actual in either mental [iota of information; abstract entities] or so-called “material” [atomic/subatomic particles] form. Is this heading in the right direction?

Well, close. As Aaron explained, PtA is not a substance, but rather a situation. So it is still an existence, but not a substance. And by "potential", we mean for example; an apple hanging from a tree, just about to fall. The apple alone does not possess the potential to fall. The tree does not pose the potential to fall (at the moment anyway). The gravitational field does not have any potential to fall. So how does falling get into the picture?

It is the combination, the "situation" that possesses the potential to actualize the falling of an apple. Every actualization of something is preceded by the potential to actualize that something. The situation must be right (by definition), else there can be no actual anything, because there would have been no potential for it, no possibility (in QM terms).

As it turns out in physical reality, it is only the potential (the PtA) changing that forms physical substance (the Affectance - ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses and waves - EMR, aka "light"). The initial potential was merely the potential to change potential - forming an affect upon potential. Then the changes in potential propagate as waves, "Affectance - Affect upon Affect".

RM:AO/Genesis wrote:"In the Beginning .. there was only Potential, and the Potential was with creativity, and the Potential was The Creator. And from the Potential came light."

- See I can do it too. There was no actual beginning except in the understanding of what must proceed what - the "light in the mind", enlightenment.

Science used to speak of "electric potential fields" or "static electric fields" and measured it in voltage. They still speak of voltage, but avoid the idea of potential. They prefer speaking of "electromagnetic" substance as a fundamental substance, leaving people a bit confused about potential energy. The static electric field is what actualizes the electric current or effect. In general, scientists make for pretty poor rational philosophers.

Anomaly654 wrote: And can you elaborate the idea of non-particulate substance? What is its form—pure energy?

By "non-particulate", I mean "infinitely divisible" or a continuum. Potentials or situations don't come in quanta (which is probably why the Quantum Magi don't want to speak of it). And even the changing potentials, the Affectance, don't have any particulate form until they amass or cluster into a traffic jam, known as a "subatomic particle" (hence "a mass particle"). The subatomic particle (in all its variety) is the actual smallest form of physical quanta (despite what the Quantum Magi like to preach).

Anomaly654 wrote: Where does value fit in?

Value is a mental construct, subjective and relative. Value is formed from a perception of hope and/or threat, PHT. If some situation appears to inspire hope, it is valued as positive. If a situation appears threatening, it is valued as negative. Positive and negative are always relative terms, both in the mental as well as the physical; positive "above" neutral and negative "below" neutral.

And just as PtA forms a propagating wave of changing PtA, PHT or Value in the mind forms propagating changes in value in the mind and consequential action (the physically existent). Such is witnessed as one thing becomes valuable merely because it is associated with or leads to another thing of value, on and on. Money is only valuable because it allows the purchase of something valuable that helps create a situation that is more valued, for whatever value related reason. All emotions, attitudes, inspirations, choice of relevance ("in-formation"), and meaning are formed from those actualizing, propagating PHT/Value waves within.

And That is where "meaning comes from".

Anomaly654 wrote:NOTE: Your last post showed only large empty space between comments; wasn’t till I clicked “quote” button just now to respond (usually just copy/paste text) that I saw YouTube links. Comments above were without vantage point of seeing videos, so apologies if they talk past relevant points. Will watch vids soon to get a stronger feel for your position.

What browser are you using?

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

This is interesting stuff. Not sure how well I’m grasping, though. Watched the videos. Here’s briefly what I come up with:

PtA = abstract “stuff” of existenceAffectance = a particle or point, a concrete instance of PtAAfflate = tiny amount of Affectance, more a “noise” or “puff” of Affectance, oblate in form [which suggests spatiality] but without a discrete border. This seems to have one foot in abstraction (puff, an almost incorporeal mist of Affectance) and one in the concrete (oblate). This is confusing to me. Can you elaborate?

Value = mental construct from perception of “hope and threat”. This is confusing, unless you just mean prescriptive value, because hope and threat has an emotive shared meaning element with good and bad. The confusing part is that descriptive value bears no such connection; I can’t see how 3+3=6 or the electrical panel in a house has a dual 240 and 120 VAC capability have any epistemic connection to “hope and threat”. They’re only statements of fact.

Also, what mechanism arranges an Afflate to "oblate" or determines that Affectance is spherical? Why not square or multiple configurations or why any geometric form at all?

Btw, I often use IE (old habit), which explains the blanks; hooked up to ILP with Firefox and now can see vids.

Anomaly654 wrote:Afflate = tiny amount of Affectance, more a “noise” or “puff” of Affectance, oblate in form [which suggests spatiality] but without a discrete border. This seems to have one foot in abstraction (puff, an almost incorporeal mist of Affectance) and one in the concrete (oblate). This is confusing to me. Can you elaborate?

I'm now dubious of any attempt to explain, perhaps Aaron can communicate it better.

Imagine a cloud in the sky. Then, with perfect eyes, you look at one small "hand full" of the cloud. And then, even further, your keen eyes focus upon only the tiny little droplets within that handful that happen to be traveling to your right. That would be analogous to an "afflate". Of course at that same location, there are the droplets heading in all of the other directions also. Each of those directions would constitute another "cloud-afflate". Ideally, there would be an infinity of afflates at that one location because there are an infinity of directions stemming from any one location.

Afflate Diagram.png (60.29 KiB) Viewed 451 times

An actual rain cloud is formed of droplets, thus there are only a finite quantity of them around a location. So the analogy isn't perfect. And also, droplets to not pass through each other, whereas propagating affectance pulses do pass through each other, but not without being slightly delayed due to the encounter.

So an "afflate" is merely a mentally chosen specific amount of the otherwise randomly scattering affectance field. The afflate is not a physically discrete entity, but a mentally chosen one, just like choosing a certain hand-full of that rain cloud and only the portion headed in a chosen direction. Afflates are used for the purpose of computer emulating a realistic affectance cloud by assigning a great many random directions and densities and then letting them flit about, interacting by the "Afflate Rules of Engagement" - the manner in which they interfere with each other's propagation.

The end result of a proper emulation is that traffic jams of flitting afflates form, "particles". They form in 3 fundamental types: Positive, Negative, and Neutral. They behave exactly as known subatomic particles. They display all of the known characteristics of subatomic particle interaction. And all without ever being told to do so, rather each individual afflate is merely told to obey those Rules of Afflate Engagement. Such is serious rational evidence that physical reality is exactly as Affectance Ontology describes it, even more so than earlier attempts; Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum.

Anomaly654 wrote:Value = mental construct from perception of “hope and threat”. This is confusing, unless you just mean prescriptive value, because hope and threat has an emotive shared meaning element with good and bad. The confusing part is that descriptive value bears no such connection; I can’t see how 3+3=6 or the electrical panel in a house has a dual 240 and 120 VAC capability have any epistemic connection to “hope and threat”. They’re only statements of fact.

The word "value" has two uses. One is to refer to a measurement of something and the other refers to an assigned degree of significance or "meaningfulness". I assumed that you were speaking of the latter of those, "meaningfulness". The former seems a bit moot.

There is an analogy between the way actual physics functions and the way that conscious motivation functions. That is what I was talking about. The videos are about the physics. The analogies are for open discussion for those few interested.

Anomaly654 wrote:Also, what mechanism arranges an Afflate to "oblate" or determines that Affectance is spherical? Why not square or multiple configurations or why any geometric form at all?

As stated above, it is merely a mental choice. Other, more difficult to program, shapes could have been chosen. In the long run, they all get blended together into a field that behaves in a specific manner - that of physical reality.

Anomaly654 wrote:Btw, I often use IE (old habit), which explains the blanks; hooked up to ILP with Firefox and now can see vids.

Hmm.. seems odd that IE can't show youtube videos.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

All of this of course is dependent on the way one looks at things to begin with.

James S Saint wrote:Actual physical reality has no information, merely the potential for someone to form ideas within their mind from it, "reality informs" and "reality in-form".

I remember a while back being caught by this trap when trying to understand what you were saying to me. In the case of RM:AO we are basing everything around two realms and they are the physical and the meta or that being described and the description respectively.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

That being described is physical reality and the description is a meta-reality. Meta-reality has information. For me it just took a little while to adjust my focus before I could understand what you were saying. It is not just the arrangement of words but the visual and relative aspect of what you are saying that is to make sense.

This is why I find your videos and diagrams useful.

Perhaps starting out a little gentler is what is called for here . . .

encode_decode wrote:All of this of course is dependent on the way one looks at things to begin with.

Yes, knowing where to start with any one person is tough.

encode_decode wrote: In the case of RM:AO we are basing everything around two realms and they are the physical and the meta or that being described and the description respectively.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I refer to them as the Physical Realm and the Conceptual Realm. They are independent as neither has affect upon the other, yet within each, everything affects something else.

But the conceptual realm is more than merely descriptions of the real. The conceptual realm is ALL concepts; ideas, imaginings, ideals, principles, strategies, maps, symbols, and thoughts - the things of form, "in-form-ation". There is nothing physical within the conceptual realm and nothing conceptual within the physical realm.

What inherently distinguishes them is that the physical realm is made of the changing, specifically the changing of the potential to change, "affect upon affect". But the conceptual realm contains no changing at all. All "affects" in the conceptual realm are more commonly called "relations". If anything was to change in the conceptual realm, other concepts would necessarily have to change also; e.g. If a "straight line" is redefined such as to include curves (as some try to do with General Relativity) then a "square" would no longer have straight sides, because one is defined in terms of the other.

The two realms can be said to be "touching" when, and only when, there is a physical happening present that is also a concept. There are a great many of those. Mass gravitation, or Migration, is always occurring somewhere in the universe as a physically real event, Physical Realm. And such an action or principle of "mass-attraction" is also a concept and principle in the Conceptual Realm. Thus the two realms "touch". The concept of mass attraction never changes and even though the mass attracting changes degree and location in the physical universe, the physical universe is never without it.

What anyone chooses to call a "realm of existence" is a bit arbitrary as long as it isn't ambiguous. One can define a Perceptual Realm as all that is ever perceived, which would include partially the physical realm and partially the conceptual realm.

Much like choosing transforms or an ontology for sake of calculations, one can choose realms for sake of organizing their thoughts .. as long as there is no ambiguity. It is merely choosing different symbols for a map of the same terrain.

encode_decode wrote: It is not just the arrangement of words but the visual and relative aspect of what you are saying that is to make sense.

That is true.

encode_decode wrote:Perhaps starting out a little gentler is what is called for here . . .

"Gentler"???

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..